What can the worlds population as a whole do to reduce CO2 emissions so that these ecosystems can be presevered?
Who has more of an effect in reducing CO2 emissions, individuals or large companies?
Because ocean acidification destroys aquatic ecosystems, what effect does it have on organisms that rely on aquatic life to survive?
In order to reduce CO2 emissions and preserve ecosystems, the world as a whole can start by reducing emissions due to transportation, such as walking, biking, taking the bus, or even carpooling. Also purchasing green electricity products and making your home energy efficient (from turning off appliances when they’re not in use to using energy star appliances). I think that large companies have more of an effect on CO2 emissions for a couple of reasons. For one thing, many of the items that people purchase in their daily lives (such as cars, light bulbs, electrical appliances, etc.) come from large companies. If these items are not energy efficient or harm the environment, then they produce CO2 emissions and cause further damage to ecosystems. If large companies male a greater effort to produce and sale energy efficient items, then people are more likely to buy and use these items, contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions. But to a certain extent, individuals do have an impact on reducing CO2 emissions if they are conscience of what appliances they are using and what actions they are taking in order to preserve our ecosystems. The acidification of oceans affects the food chain, in that it kills organisms that are at the bottom or core. When these core organisms disappear, it affects the rest of the food chain and how much other organisms are able to consume. If acidification of the ocean does not stop or reduce, then we will see much more damage to ecosystems in the future.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Chelsea on her points about large companies having a large impact on reducing CO2 emissions, I feel that an individual has better opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions as well as a better incentive to want to go 'green'. I think that the individual has to show the need for green products, which will then encourage companies to provide more acceptable products. Companies will not want to make the leap and spend more money to go green, if they think no one will buy the products. Also, individuals have the better opportunity to be energy efficient as well as conserve energy. By this I mean, individuals can easily turn off lights when they aren't using them as well as switch their lights to CFL's, whereas large scale companies aren't going to be willing to pitch in the money to change. Companies at this point, are still economically based and not environmentally based, so changing to more efficient but more expensive lights/appliances will need a lot of encouraging.
ReplyDeleteIt will, therefore, take every individual to want to make the switch to help reduce the CO2 emissions. Every person reduces a certain amount of CO2 everyday, even if they think they don't play a big impact on environmental issues like ocean acidification or the enhanced greenhouse effect. Individuals need to make the switch to more efficient lights, vehicles, houses ect.. to help reduce CO2 emissions. The government needs to play a role in helping make this change, as well as large companies. Although it may not be in their best economic interest, if we are to reduce CO2 emissions and save the oceans, then serious changes need to be made.
The changes in the ocean will effect all of the organisms and animals in the ocean and on land, in some way or another. Once a certain organisms begins to die out, then that will affect another organism, changing the whole food chain. This could play a huge role in human's food supply, like fish, because if something disrupts the food chain in the ocean and the fish can't survive, then that affects humans as well.
We all must do our part in cutting our own personal CO2 emissions from the air which acidify our oceans. Simple steps, such as recycling and composting, or even driving at the speed limit, have a massive effect in preserving the environment, including our oceans, when the entire world joins in. However, the most effective way to battle CO2 emissions is by making the large corporations change their wasteful ways. Sure, we can drive the speed limit to do our part, but we have to go to the source of our problems. If we make the companies supplying the masses with the CO2 emitting cars change to a cleaner product, everyone will be driving greener cars and polluting less without putting an effort towards it. Ultimately, it is the individuals who pollute the earth, but we must look at who is allowing us to pollute to solve our problem. The corporations are those who provide us with inefficient cars and dirty power and must be the ones who change.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't change our ways one way or another, the entire ocean ecosystem is at risk. People don't realize what they are polluting into the air because CO2 is invisible to our naked eye. But what isn't invisible is the sickening amounts of damage that are wreaking the ocean ecosystems. Naturally, the simplest organisms will be the first to perish by the acidifying ocean due to their fragile structures. These simple organisms are at the bottom of the food chain. Those who eat these small creatures will now have no food and die out. Those who eat these creatures will die out as well, and on and on. The smallest effect to the natural ecosystem throws the entire food chain out of line.
I think that in order to reduce the CO2 emissions, the world population as a whole need to start off with little steps. I think that we need to start off with everyday stuff like energy-saving appliances at home, public transportation, or transportation that does not emit so much CO2 emissions. For energy-saving appliances, people should use CFL lights for their lights at home and also use Energy Star products to conserve more energy. For public transportation, people should start riding the bike, trains, and buses more often. We can also start using the fuel cell cars more often because they emit less CO2 emissions than fossil fuel engines. People could also start using passive solar energies at home like facing the windows toward the south and also build deciduous trees to help block the sun during the summer.
ReplyDeleteI believe that large companies and individuals can have the same impact and effect on preventing the CO2 emissions from rising. However, I do think that the individuals should be the ones taking the initiatives. For most large businesses, all they are thinking about is making money. Most of them will not spend more money to be environmentally healthy. So the individuals have to start by buying more energy-saving appliances and this will lead for the businesses to want to produce more of these environmentally healthy products. Once they produce more of it, they will want to commercialize them and this leads to a cycle in which will help the whole globe to make an impact to the solution of the CO2 emissions.
Ocean acidification is huge in the destruction of the aquatic system. Like in the movie we watched, due to the ocean acidification, shell like organisms like the pteropods are dying. Even though they may seem insignificant to the ecosystem, but they are on the bottom of the food chain. If they all die, the whole food chain will be destroyed. In addition to that, coral reefs are also dying because of the ocean acidification. They are important in that they are the homes for many aquatic life. Ocean acidification will not only impact the ocean aquatic system, it will also affect us and the future generation.
In order to reduce the amount of CO2 in our oceans, we need to make big changes. However, the changes need to come in small bunches. Right now, everyone is talking about "going green" or different things like that. We need to do a little at a time. Put appliances in your home such as the Mr.Slim at the smart home. Get energy star appliances. Put solar panels on your roof. There are many different things that could be done in order to reduce CO2. I think that the people will have more power in creating less CO2. I believe this because all the company wants to do is make money and become the best company they can. If that means not building something so they dont have to use scrubbers, then they will do it. However, people can put solar panels on their roof, or share a wind turbine with many neighbors. They can also ride bikes to work, walk, or carpool. There are many things that can me changed about our system, but i think that the individual person can make a bigger change and is more willing to make the change. However, there are companies such as Lincoln Electric that are trying to make a change when they put up Ohio's largest wind turbine right outside their factory. The ocean acidification is huge. fish such as the beautiful terapods, that fly around will die off. Also fish such as shrimp will die off, giving birds less food to eat. The food chain will not be as complete, and it will be unsafe to eat fish. I believe that we need to stop burning fossil feuls and make sure the ocean acidification doesnt get out of control
ReplyDeleteI believe that they put it well in the article: "the same strategies needed to fight global warming on land can also help in the seas". I think that because we are so focused on how our use of fossil fuels puts gas in the atmosphere and creates the enhanced greenhouse effect, we forget that the CO2 enters into the water as well. It seems to be not necessarily an ignored problem, but one that many people are ignorant of. I think that most of the work that we can do to stop ocean acidification comes from limiting our use of fossil fuels and implementing carbon management programs that sequester carbon from the air and from water. All of the steps that we think are important to limit CO2 in the air (less burning of fossil fuels, etc) are necessary to an even larger extent now because we realize that we not only have to protect the atmosphere, but the oceans as well.
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility to reduce CO2 emissions I think should be both personally and GOVERNMENTALLY regulated. I believe that each person should be focused personally on how to regulate their own CO2 emissions and that there should be incentives for those actions. While trusting every person individually to make these changes without incentives is ideal, I think the incentives will allow for change to begin and come to a point where the lower emissions of CO2 becomes the norm, and people therefore do not need incentives to put in their part. I believe that because we are at such a crucial point (where we can see the effects and we can see the detriments that would occur from our rate of consumption, pollution, etc.) the government needs to intervene. I think that the government regulating how much CO2 industries are allowed to emit or if they make some reasonable changes to encourage or even require people to make positive changes, we will undoubtedly see improvements.
Ocean acidification is a domino effect. If the pteropods (or other species at the bottom of the food chain) are killed, then the species that eat them will lose their food, and the effects continue through the entire chain. Besides threatening certain species, ocean acidification can ruin the whole food chain as well as changing the entire aquatic ecosystem and the way that it functions as a whole.
Unfortunately, coral decay is a widespread and common occurrence. Because of ocean acidification, this essential organism is rapidly becoming endangered all over the world. It is up to us to come up with more technologies that will make better use of the energy sources that we are already using; we also need more technologies that utilizes other inherent energy sources in our world. Enter PaveGen (http://hawkenapes.blogspot.com/), the kinetic energy tile that can power anything with just a step. By placing PaveGen tiles anywhere that has a lot of foot traffic, we can power our world without harmful effects on the environment. Currently, PaveGen tiles are being tested in England in stadiums and at civilian crosswalks, proving daily that human energy can be harnessed just as well as that of any fossil fuel. These tiles are even made out of recycled rubber from car tires, making them efficient and increasingly cost-effective.
ReplyDeleteThe obvious number one answer to reducing CO2 emissions is to convert our energy reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. There are a large number of renewable energy sources that should be integrated into our society. Currently our society is set up to rely on these fossil fuels, so switching to renewable energy sources will require lots of changes which may be slightly costly in the short term but they will pay themselves off as technologies improve. Society will also be extremely happy that they paid a little extra upfront when our Earth is not deteriorating from the affects of CO2 and other harmful emissions.
ReplyDeleteI think that large companies have more of an effect in reducing CO2 emissions because they are, for the most part, producing larger amounts of CO2 than an individual person. It would be easier to persuade one large company to go green than persuade the large number of people whose CO2 emissions equal that of the large company’s. That being said, I believe that individuals are still very important in reducing CO2 emissions. Educating the public on the affects of CO2 and urging them to emit fewer greenhouse gases by purchasing energy efficient appliances, driving more fuel efficient vehicles, and using these high energy items as infrequently as possible, should encourage more people to join the green movement.
Because the world is an interconnected system where all organisms are somehow connected to one another, the destruction of these aquatic ecosystems would have widespread affects on many organisms. These affects would be felt by all organisms who are directly in contact with them, predators or victims of prey, but they would also be felt by organisms with a more removed relationship to them. Humans would fall in this category. The destruction of these aquatic ecosystems will most likely eventually affect the fish population we eat. This can cause shortages or contamination of seafood.